Ten Things You Should Know About Waldorf/Steiner Schools

Waldorf/Steiner Schools would rather you did not know about the occult religion that underpins its methods.

Waldorf Schools (or Steiner Schools as they are sometimes called) are portrayed as progressive, humanistic and child-centred. Parents are attracted to this form of education as such schools suggest they are an alternative to the ‘robotic exam factories’ of mainstream schools that do not take into account the unique needs of each child. However, before you plunge into putting your child into such a school it is worth understanding things that are rarely disclosed to prospective parents.

The Independent today discusses how parents have come to discover the occult nature of the schools with their disturbing beliefs about race, child care and education. Here are ten facts that you ought to be aware of.

1. Claim: Rudolf Steiner was a philosopher, child psychologist and scientist.
Rudolf Steiner was a follower of the occult belief system of Theosophy. He split with other Theosophists in around 1912 after most accepted an Indian child named Krishnamurti as the new “World Teacher” and reincarnation of Christ. He ridiculed the notion that a ‘Hindu lad’ could be the new cosmic leader. He took with him the German speaking Theosophists to found his own occult religion which he called Anthroposophy. A core belief of Steiner’s was that human souls evolve through a series of incarnations and as a soul develops it will take on different racial forms with black people being the most ‘immature’ souls and Aryans being the highest spiritual form. Steiner called his beliefs ‘Occult Science’ or ‘Spiritual Science’ and that his ‘science’ was the necessary way to ensure the white races did not degenerate. He believed through clairvoyance you could determine the true spiritual nature of the cosmos. This is is the foundation of all his beliefs in education.

2. Claim: Curriculum and methods are based around theories of child development.Anthroposophical child development is different from what you might think of as child development. In line with with Steiner’s mystical religious beliefs, his theories of child development are based around the process of reincarnation. The curriculum of Steiner Schools is designed to help children progress through the stages of reincarnation as they grow. Reincarnation does not happen all at once at birth, but develops over seven year cycles. At birth a child is given their ‘physical’ body, at Age 7 (or when teeth develop) the child takes on their ‘etheric’ body, at 14 their ‘astral’ body. At each stage of reincarnation, the child becomes more ready to engage in different forms of education. For example, reading is suppressed until the adult teeth appear indicating the etheric body has taken hold.

3. Claim: Waldorf Schools are not religious and are non-denominational.Schools routinely tell parents and authorities that they are not religious. Indeed, in the UK this was a condition for the form of funding that new Steiner Schools got from the state. But this is not true. But Waldorf Schools mislead parents and have done since the first one opened. Steiner told his teachers to use the words ‘verses’ instead of ‘prayers’. Anthroposophical chants and ‘hymns’ are routine. Parents are told that the Festivals that are celebrated in school, such as Michaelmas, Martinmas and Midsummer, are part of the ‘Northern European Tradition’ but actually are Anthroposophical festivals with occult meanings. Sometimes names are changed, such as ‘Advent’ where an advent spiral of light is walked by the children to represent reincarnation. Children and parents are not told the true meaning of their ‘celebrations’.

4. Claim: Waldorf Schools are merely ‘inspired’ by Steiner and have moved on from his time.It is common for schools to deny their Anthroposophical religious nature. Indeed, Steiner told his teachers to do so, otherwise ‘people would break the Waldorf School’s neck’. A Waldorf or Steiner School is defined by its adherence to the Waldorf Curriculum which is monitored by Anthroposophical Societies. Any school that was merely ‘inspired’ would not be allowed to call itself a Waldorf or Steiner School. If you are told that the school has developed on from Steiner’s curriculum you should ask specifically which elements of the curriculum have been abandoned and what new inspiration or ideas have been brought in. If this ‘inspired’ claim is true then you should receive detailed answers. Parents do not though.

5. Claim: Delayed reading benefits children.
One of the main signatures of a Waldorf Education is that children do not start to learn to read until much later than other schools. Parents are often told there is good research to delay reading. But the reason for delaying reading is not based on educational evidence but for occult reasons. Steiner believed reading was bad for a child’s soul development and should be delayed as much as possible. Books are taken from children and parents are discouraged from reading at home. Now, there is variation around the world when mainstream schools start reading. Sometimes this is to do with the nature of the local language – English, for example, can be quite hard to master. However, Steiner Schools cherry pick their evidence to support their occult belief and mask their spiritual mission.

6. Claim: Steiner’s unpleasant views have ‘fallen by the wayside’.Waldorf Schools are quick to distance themselves from the racist views of Rudolf Steiner. They will always claim they accept all children “regardless of nationality, race, gender or religion”. But this is again to mask the racist cosmology that Steiner developed. Steiner claimed he loved all humans. But he saw humans as evolving through a racial hierarchy. It was the aim of Anthroposophy to help souls develop spiritually and evolve through the races. As such, Steiner’s racism was paternalistic, but nonetheless deeply offensive. Steiner’s methods would encourage teachers to treat children differently depending on their soul’s ‘development’ which might be measured by skin colour – amongst other physical characteristics. Some Schools claim that these racist views have been denounced. But as such views form the foundation of Anthroposophy, you might expect a root and branch change in the religion with soul searching reviews of practice and beliefs, and huge efforts to ensure such beliefs do not linger in schools. There has been no such review and there are no such documents to discuss the impact of the founder’s overt white supremacist views and racism in Steiner education. As the Independent article demonstrates, racists school texts and practices persist to this day.

7. Claim: Waldorf/Steiner Schools do not teach the children Anthroposophy.On virtually all School websites you will find statements suggesting that the School does not ‘promote or teach Anthroposophy’. This is thoroughly misleading. It is like a doctor telling her patients that she does not teach them medicine. Of course not – she practices medicine on them. Waldorf schools practice Anthroposophy on the children. Everything in the school is Anthroposophical, from the class and school structure, the curriculum and lesson plans, the festivals, the occult dancing known as eurythmy, the style of art work, the crafts, the myths and cryptohistory and the pseudoscience. The aim of Steiner School is to steep the children in the ideas, myths, practices and rhythms of Anthroposophy – and without them knowing. The archangels and earth spirits, such as gnomes, become routine parts of daily education. The prayers and spiritual cosmology become normalised without explicit religious instruction. The schools live Anthroposophy. The attitudes and worldview are designed to inculcate a predisposition to Anthroposophy so that young adults will go on to take part in Steiner communities, such as Camphill, biodynamics or the many businesses with Anthroposophical roots. The ex-teacher and whistleblower, Grégoire Perra, calls such education an “Insidious Indoctrination“.

8. Claim: Children have excellent results from such schools and go on to excel in life.Children in Waldorf Schools are exposed to a very narrow and constrained curriculum that has been described as ‘fossilised’. It’s emphasis is on the ‘creative’ subjects but even then, creativity is carefully defined and controlled. Subjects such as History are tightly defined to reflect Anthroposophical ideas of their myths of human history, such as a literal belief in the Atlantis catastrophe. Academic subjects have a low emphasis and science is undermined by a pseudoscientific and anti-intellectual stance. Schools define themselves on their objection to being an ‘exam factory’ and children, if they stay in the school, rarely leave with what might be called a full range of qualifications. Proponents often point to lists of famous and successful alumni. Such ‘successes’ are almost exclusively in arts, acting and a few sports. The reason there are no scientists, for example, has been argued because children are just not equipped to take on post-school academic disciplines. And indeed, it has been argued that this is exactly what Steiner education wants to achieve so that instead they may stay within the Anthroposophical fold. If children do take exams, they take very few carefully selected ones. These successes are paraded as children achieving very high marks. The problem is that children are starved of the opportunity to excel in their own personal ways.

9. Claim: Waldorf/Steiner Schools are safe places for children.
Various aspects of Waldorf education pose direct risks to children. Steiner’s belief in alternative medicine persists in Anthroposophy where homeopathy is seen as legitimate and anti-vaccination views are routine. In the UK, the NHS a has reported that the Health Protection Agency views Steiner Schools as “High Risk” as they are “unvaccinated communities”. Measles, and other preventable dangerous diseases can quickly run rife through Steiner communities and schools. The closed nature of Steiner Schools also makes it possible for undesirable adults to come into contact with children. Problem teachers are moved from school to school. In the UK, several of the small number of Steiner schools have been issued with improvement notices over child protection or even have been forced to close. Bullying is often reported as a problem by parents as teachers may see this a ‘karma’ being played out by the children from former lives.

10. Claim: Children love Steiner Education.
No doubt many children do love the style of school offered by Waldorf. That it is not as academically demanding might be enjoyable for some children. One has to ask if enjoyment of school so the best measure of an education. And many do not enjoy their experience at all. Attrition/drop-out rates are often reported as high. Many parents realise their children are falling behind their peers and pull them out. Other children, if they are academically minded or need specialist help or skills, or need careful pushing or encouraging to overcome academic blockages, will not flourish. An important feature of the Waldorf style is having a single class teacher that children stay with for many years. A child’s experience of school will depend almost entirely on the nature of that teacher, their skills, empathy and relationships. If that goes sour then a child has no escape.

95 Comments on Ten Things You Should Know About Waldorf/Steiner Schools

As readers of previous articles on this subject in this blog will know I disagree with Andy’s views on Steiner Schools and Education. Newcomers can find my attempt at an evidence-based appraisal on the subject at https://stumbles.org.uk/Steiner/skeptic/

To John Stumbles. Thanks for posting and it is always healthy to hear other views.

We do have much to agree on – you do not dispute the religious and mystical nature of Steiner education and you even appear to accept that it is ‘barmpottery’. But where we disagree is that there is some sort of equivalence here between Steiner’s religion and say a Church of England School. My main argument is based around the way Steiner School’s downplay their religious nature and intentions and even try to deny it. You say that you do not accept this attempt to keep things quiet as you “barely trust the Steiner movement to organise a piss-up in a brewery”. I must say this defense is not a good argument for Steiner education. And you are not alone – I hear it a lot about the shambolic nature of the schools. You do not need a highly disciplined and organised management to try to keep the occultism out of sight. You just need to inculcate staff with a few defenses and instincts to downplay all these aspects. I would suggest the School movement is very good at this providing handy set answers to tricky questions.

Your other arguments tend to cluster around Tu Quoque attacks of other schools, snd post hoc cherry picking of academic evidence to support the occult practices. But you do suggest that focus should be on reforming Steiner education and moderising it. I believe that to be impossible. It has not evolved in a hundred years and I see no reason why it should do now. It is not an evidence-based and progressive environment that has the capacity to absorb, assess and assimilate new ideas. It can only really be seen as the education and recruitment wing of a strange Germanic mystical cult. Who want want to take this as a good foundation for a progressive and evidence-based educational movement?

I do fear, John, that your stance is one of someone who has educated their children through the system and now wants to defend those choices. That is understandable. But there are many other parents that have also done so and now want to express what they feel was a dreadful decision. That is the purpose of this post – to ensure prospective parents are not going to come to nasty surprises once their children are enrolled. I have heard from too many parents in such a situation and I am sure we can agree that forewarned is forearmed.

Thanks for your reply. I don’t want to get into a point-by-point discussion of it: I have moved on from Steiner matters and spend what little spare time and energy I have on what I see as much more important issues (climate change and mitigation).

I would like however to offer a couple of observations.

The first is that what I have written about is based on a combination of my own experiences of my involvement with (mostly) just one Steiner Lower School (for ages up to 14 or so), plus materials found on the internet. I think your sources are largely disaffected former Steiner parents, pupils and teachers (plus internet materials). Thus it is not surprising that we should have different views, but I think you are claiming some generality for your opinions whereas I hope I am admitting the limitations of mine.

Secondly you suggest that I may have a tendency to bias regarding the quality of the education I invested money and effort into giving my children. You are of course quite right that – like any human being – I may be prone to such a bias. (Likewise your informants who withdrew from and reject Steiner education – especially those who have devoted much effort into denigrating and opposing it – are also likely to be prone to a bias towards the position they have adopted and the energy they have devoted to it.) However I hope much of my essay stands on its own merits, regardless of who wrote it.

I would also note that as part of adopting a skeptical world-view I do try to keep an open mind and have changed my views when the evidence shows I was wrong, for example on vaccines (https://stumbles.org.uk/vaccines/) and nuclear power (https://stumbles.org.uk/Nuclear_Power/). Over the course of the two decades or so that I was involved with Steiner education I have changed my opinions about it quite significantly and I think I am capable of admitting I am wrong about it when I find the evidence shows that.

I actually find that admitting when I am wrong rather than trying to defend an untenable position is quite a liberating experience: I highly recommend it!

Having read John’s contribution in the link he gives I think he makes many useful points that help to provide perspective and balance.
Few could disagree with his comment:
“I think we should also have a bigger and bolder aim: for the education all our children receive to be based on objective evidence”.
The bigger picture is indeed to promote evidence-based secular education.
We should all be cautious about allowing those with any sort of ‘belief systems’ to have influence over formative minds, especially in education. Whatever the professed belief system, it will tend to suppress reality and objectivity, decency, ethics and evidence, which are subservient to the higher master of belief (whether it is held openly or secretly – the most dangerous sort).
As a retired doctor who has enjoyed the confidence of many religious devotees, from bishops to nuns, it is my experience that a large proportion of them have engaged in unacceptable practices – of all sorts (‘oh, I wouldn’t confess that to the priest Dr’, was a fairly common response from those questioned about a ‘revelation’).
Therefore, whenever I hear Pell, or any other supposedly eminent religious person, claiming that they didn’t know something was going on I can be pretty confident that they are not a truthful person. Many people with fervent beliefs misrepresent situations and tell fibs and are convinced that is justified in furthering the righteousness of their cause, whatever it may be. Therefore, whenever I hear anyone like Pell I cannot help a wry smile and thinking of the innumerable other religious worthies who have made similar denials. Never trust a ‘believer’. Secrecy makes it worse.

Doctors have to obtain fully informed consent before treating a patient.
(I know some do not, but we are supposed to).
Likewise, teachers should have to explain the underlying belief systems of their educational practices before teaching a child, particularly when they are unconventional or faith based.

Parents who ignorantly expose their children otherwise are abusing them.

The teaching profession should put its house in order and make this clear.
Steiner himself was not shy about his beliefs. Why are Steiner schools so coy?

This is what Justin Theroux has to say about his Waldorf experience:
‘
I went to a Rudolf Steiner school. They’re awful. They’re still around, these experimental schools that started in the 1920s, no grades, no real classes. It was all knitting and beeswax-making s*** like that.’

Though Andy has appeared to ignore this for years, Steiner was indeed trained in science at undergraduate level and took a doctorate in philosophy of science. This background and his clairvoyance gave him a deep, perhaps unique, understanding of science, its history and its limitations. This depth can be illustrated by a description I wrote elsewhere of some of the contents of his 1922 lectures The Origins of Natural Science.

—-

I would say that one of Steiner’s greatest gifts to the world is his explanation and delineation of the evolution of consciousness, and particularly his focus on its change at the birth of our modern object conscious during the scientific revolution. No other writer has depicted this change so fully and knowledgeably (he was educated in science and took a doctorate in philosophy of science). His critics have almost uniformly ignored this side of his work – Peter Staudenmaier claimed he knew it in debate with me but his understanding was superficial and inaccurate.

Steiner showed, in works like Origins of Natural Science, how the scientific worldview developed out of this change in man’s consciousness. The Galileo-ean idea of an infinite space surrounding us, in which objects moved and interacted via forces, came out of a newly developing awareness of living an almost purely physical existence. In the previous Middle Ages people still lived a little above the physical and Steiner describes in that book (http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA326/English/AP1985/19230103p01.html) how this vestigious experience of the spiritual provided the content of the medieval transition sciences of iatro-chemistry (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrochemistry) and iatrophysics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrophysics). As this vestige died away, people began to look out into the world with a new consciousness of up-down, left-right, forward-back, arising out of a bodily experience that had become less conscious and so was projected out into the world in the Euclidean co-ordinate system, in which the laws of physics were formulated over the next 3 centuries.

Steiner showed (http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA326/English/AP1985/19221228p01.html) that another consequence of this change of consciousness was the development of the epistemological doctrine, from Galileo’s day onward, that perceptual experience consisted of objective ‘primary qualities’ – of size, number and motion – and subjective ‘secondary qualities’, of taste, colour, touch etc. The primary qualities became the subject matter of physics, to which mathematics could be applied, and it was forgotten that the secondary qualities were the actual content of the senses, from which the objective qualities were derived (how can one tell the size of something without perceiving its edges, found from changes of colour?).

We are living with the legacy of this change of consciousness, which has left us with a sharp, clear awareness of the physical-material world but an uncertain, unclear one of the spiritual and which tends to dismiss the spiritual in favour of the material, in the doctrine of materialism. Steiner’s wish was that this clear, modern object consciousness be trained, initially within the spiritual movement he founded of anthroposophy, to be extended to the spiritual world. From what I’ve seen this hasn’t happened and hardly anyone in anthroposophy seems to know about or be interested in this foundational part of Steiner’s work and legacy, the genius of which I consider to point to Steiner likely having had a previous incarnation as Aristotle.

Following my comment above, I’ve studied physics to degree level and the unquestioned, never discussed, assumption is that the world is and has always been made of the primary qualities that physics studies and the other qualities came into existence when life and human beings evolved billions of years later. As Owen Barfield pointed out 60 years ago, this is a logical absurdity. Yet it is still never questioned.

I don’t think you understand. Physics works on the principle that that the world consists of that which has location, shape and movement, primary qualities, which are said to be objective. Physics is said to be the foundational science of reality, upon which the others are built (it’s this conceit that allows people like Stephen Hawking to talk of finding a Theory of Everything, when it’s just a theory of physics). The colour, taste, sound, warmth, etc of reality, secondary qualities, are said to be subjective and are not part of physics, or, it’s believed, foundational reality.

Ted – this is complete bollocks. Let’s take the concept of ‘colour’. Colour has no fundamental meaning in physics. It is an emergent property that arises from physiological and psychological processes as a result of human sense interactions with photons of different wavelengths from the physical world around them. What is wrong with what I have said and what is a ‘logical absurdity’ about it?

That is not our experience of colour. Our experience of colour is not ’emergent’; it is prior to the external process you describe, which is one of primary quality properties of length, shape etc (of photons and wavelengths) .

It seems you continue to misunderstand. Physics says the world originally consisted of particles in motion, which have no colour, sound, tastes etc, since these are secondary subjective qualities, that it is said exist in us and not the world. However, we perceive only secondary qualities and abstract from those the primary quality entities of physics. How can abstracted primary quality entities create secondary qualities?

You still don’t understand. I’m not taking about Platonism, I’m taking about primary and secondary qualities. I’m not sure what more I can say if you don’t want to think about this. Perhaps words from someone else might help you to see what P/S qualities are.

“Simply put, one could say with Locke that the external world outside of man is form, position, and movement, whereas all that makes up the content of the sense world exists in truth somehow inside us. The actual content of color as a human experience is nowhere in the environment, it lives in me. The actual content of sound is nowhere to be found outside, it lives in me. The same is true of my experience of warmth or cold.

In former ages, when what had become the content of knowledge was experienced jointly with the world, one could not possibly have had this view because, as I have said, a man experienced mathematics by participating in his own bodily orientation and placing this orientation into his own movement. He experienced this, however, in communion with the world. Therefore, his own experience was sufficient reason for assuming the objectivity of position, place, and movement. Also, though in another portion of his inner life, man again had this communion with the world in regard to color, tone, and so forth. Just as the concept of movement was gained through the experience of his own movement, so the concept of color was gained through a corresponding internal experience in the blood, and this experience was then connected with whatever is warmth, color, sound, and so forth in the surrounding world. Certainly, in earlier times, man distinguished position, location, movement, and time-sequence from color, sound, and warmth, but these were distinguished as being different kinds of experiences that were undergone jointly with different kinds of existence in the objective world.

Now, in the scientific age, the determination of place, movement, position, and form ceased to be inward self-experience. Instead, they were regarded as mere hypotheses that were caused by some external reality. When the shape of a cannon is imagined, one can hardly say: This form of the cannon is actually somehow within me. Therefore its identification was directed outward and the imagined form of the cannon was related to something objective. One could not very well admit that a musket-ball was actually flying within one’s brain; therefore, the hypothetically thought-out movements were attributed to something objective.

On the other hand, what one saw in the flying musket-ball, the flash by which one perceived it and the sound by which one heart it, were pushed into one’s own human nature, since no other place could be found for them. Man no longer knew how he experienced them jointly with the objects; therefore, he associated them with his own being.

It actually took quite some time before those who thought along the lines of the scientific age perceived the impossibility of this arrangement. What had in fact taken place? The secondary qualities, sound, color, and warmth experience, had become, as it were, fair game in the world and, in regard to human knowledge, had to take refuge in man. But before too long, nobody had any idea of how they lived there. The experience, the self-experience, was no longer there. There was no connection with external nature, because it was not experienced anymore. Therefore these experiences were pushed into one’s self. So far as knowledge was concerned, they had, as it were, disappeared inside man. Vaguely it was thought that an ether vibration out in space translated itself into form and movement, and this had an effect on the eye, and then worked on the optic nerve, and finally somehow entered the brain. Our thoughts were a means of looking around inside for whatever it was that, as an effect of the primary qualities, supposedly expressed itself in man as secondary qualities. It took a long time, as I said, before a handful of people firmly pointed out the oddity of these ideas. There is something extraordinary in what the Austrian philosopher Richard Wahle [ 44 ] wrote in his Mechanism of Thinking, though he himself did not realize the full implications of his sentence: “Nihil est in cerebro, quod non est in nervis.” (“There is nothing in the brain that is not in the nerves.” It may not be possible with the means available today to examine the nerves in every conceivable way, but even if we could we would not find sound, color, or warmth experience in them. Therefore, they must not be in the brain either. Actually, one has to admit now that they simply disappear insofar as knowledge is concerned. One examines the relationship of man to the world. Form, position, place, time, etc. are beheld as objective. Sound, warmth, experience and color vanish; they elude one. [ 45 ]”

“”……Steiner was indeed trained in science at undergraduate level and took a doctorate in philosophy of science. This background and his clairvoyance gave him a deep, perhaps unique, understanding of science, its history and its limitations.”

Nonsense, how this is sugar coated!
Fact is: yes, Steiner received a PhD in philosophy from the University of Rostock (which Steiner never attended) in 1891 under somewhat unusual circumstances.
Anyone, reading this, can find some background here: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/waldorf-critics/conversations/messages/13424
Here: “”During his time in Vienna Steiner was deeply involved in a variety of intellectual pursuits and evidently uninterested in academic qualifications. Most prominently, he helped edit some of Geothe’s scientific works. Seven years after leaving the Technical College, having moved to Weimar, Steiner tried to re-orient toward an academic career, an option that faced several hurdles: for one thing, he hadn’t gone to a Gymnasium for secondary school, the normal prerequisite for pursuing a university degree, and for another thing, he hadn’t completed his studies at the Technical College. But Steiner persisted, at first attempting to have a book he wrote in 1884 accepted as a dissertation. When this failed, he contacted a professor at the university in Rostock, which Steiner never attended, who agreed to serve as his doctoral supervisor from afar. In 1891 Steiner submitted a dissertation — published a year later and now available in English under two different titles, ‘Truth and Science’ and ‘Truth and Knowledge — which was accepted, just barely, by the philosophy department at the university of Rostock, and Steiner received his PhD.”” https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/waldorf-critics/conversations/messages/30836

Owen Barfield and his uncertain legacy? One thing is for certain: the funeral rites for him were of the Christian Community, set up by Steiner.
He did join the Anthro Society and he retained many anthro beliefs.

MCnP, sugar coated? I said Steiner was trained in science and took a doctorate in philosophy of science. Peter Staudenmaier agrees. He adds that Steiner edited Goethe’s scientific works. Did you have some point in posting that?

Steiner’s refutation, in 1890, of physics’ claim that primary qualities are the objectively real.

“When we are alone in the dark, in complete silence, so that we have no sense impressions, — of what are we totally and fully conscious? — Our thoughts and ideas! After these comes everything we can experience through the senses. That is given to me when I open my sense organs to the outer world and keep them receptive. Aside from ideas, ideals and sense impressions, nothing is given to me. Everything else can only be derived as existing and ideas on the basis of our sense impressions.

Can I make such an assumption about moving atoms? If motion occurs, there must be something that moves. By what do I recognize motion? Only by seeing that the bodies change their place in space. But what I see before me are bodies with all qualities of color, etc.

So what does the physicist want to explain? Let us say color. He says: it is motion. What moves? A colorless body. Or, he wants to explain warmth. He again says: it is motion. What moves? A body without warmth. In short: if we explain all qualities of bodies by motion, we finally have to assume that the moving objects have no qualities, as all qualities originate in motion.

To recapitulate. The physicist explains all sense-perceivable, all sense-perceptible qualities by motion. So, what moves cannot yet have qualities. But what has no qualities cannot move at all. Therefore, the atom assumed by physicists is a thing that dissolves into nothing if judged sharply.
So, the whole way of explanation falls. We must ascribe to color, warmth, sounds, etc., the same reality as to motion. With this, we have refuted the physicists, and have proved the objective reality of the world of phenomena and of ideas.”

Steiner’s refutation, in 1890, of physics’ claim that primary qualities are the objectively real.

“When we are alone in the dark, in complete silence, so that we have no sense impressions, — of what are we totally and fully conscious? — Our thoughts and ideas! After these comes everything we can experience through the senses. That is given to me when I open my sense organs to the outer world and keep them receptive. Aside from ideas, ideals and sense impressions, nothing is given to me. Everything else can only be derived as existing and ideas on the basis of our sense impressions.

Can I make such an assumption about moving atoms? If motion occurs, there must be something that moves. By what do I recognize motion? Only by seeing that the bodies change their place in space. But what I see before me are bodies with all qualities of color, etc.

So what does the physicist want to explain? Let us say color. He says: it is motion. What moves? A colorless body. Or, he wants to explain warmth. He again says: it is motion. What moves? A body without warmth. In short: if we explain all qualities of bodies by motion, we finally have to assume that the moving objects have no qualities, as all qualities originate in motion.

To recapitulate. The physicist explains all sense-perceivable, all sense-perceptible qualities by motion. So, what moves cannot yet have qualities. But what has no qualities cannot move at all. Therefore, the atom assumed by physicists is a thing that dissolves into nothing if judged sharply.
So, the whole way of explanation falls. We must ascribe to color, warmth, sounds, etc., the same reality as to motion. With this, we have refuted the physicists, and have proved the objective reality of the world of phenomena and of ideas.”

BTW, McNP, your argument about Barfield is what’s called an ad hominem. An ad hominem is not a logically valid form of argument but an attack on the messenger, usually designed to hide the fact that the disputant has nothing to say.

More from the Steiner Wiki entry on Steiner’s scientific and philosophical training and background.

“In 1879, the family moved to Inzersdorf to enable Steiner to attend the Vienna Institute of Technology,[17] where he studied mathematics, physics, chemistry, botany, biology, literature, and philosophy on an academic scholarship from 1879 to 1883, at the end of which time he withdrew from the institute without graduating.[2]:446[18]:29 In 1882, one of Steiner’s teachers, Karl Julius Schröer,[16]:Chap. 3 suggested Steiner’s name to Joseph Kürschner, chief editor of a new edition of Goethe’s works,[19] who asked Steiner to become the edition’s natural science editor,[20] a truly astonishing opportunity for a young student without any form of academic credentials or previous publications.[18]:43.

Before attending the Vienna Institute of Technology, Steiner had studied Kant, Fichte and Schelling.[21]
….
In 1888, as a result of his work for the Kürschner edition of Goethe’s works, Steiner was invited to work as an editor at the Goethe archives in Weimar. Steiner remained with the archive until 1896. As well as the introductions for and commentaries to four volumes of Goethe’s scientific writings, Steiner wrote two books about Goethe’s philosophy: The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe’s World-Conception (1886),[24] which Steiner regarded as the epistemological foundation and justification for his later work,[25] and Goethe’s Conception of the World (1897).[26]. During this time he also collaborated in complete editions of the works of Arthur Schopenhauer and the writer Jean Paul and wrote numerous articles for various journals.

In 1891, Steiner received a doctorate in philosophy at the University of Rostock, for his dissertation discussing Fichte’s concept of the ego,[9][27] submitted to Heinrich von Stein, whose Seven Books of Platonism Steiner esteemed.[16]:Chap. 14 Steiner’s dissertation was later published in expanded form as Truth and Knowledge: Prelude to a Philosophy of Freedom (German: Wahrheit und Wissenschaft – Vorspiel einer Philosophie der Freiheit”), with a dedication to Eduard von Hartmann.[28] Two years later, he published Die Philosophie der Freiheit (The Philosophy of Freedom or The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity—Steiner’s preferred English title) (1894), an exploration of epistemologyand ethics that suggested a way for humans to become spiritually free beings. Steiner later spoke of this book as containing implicitly, in philosophical form, the entire content of what he later developed explicitly as anthroposophy.[29]”

I think that anyone looking at what I’ve posted above on Steiner’s scientific and philosophical training and the excerpts from his scientific and philosophical writings can see that Andy’s sketch, in his first point, of Steiner’s scientific and philosophical background is at best ignorant and at worst mere prejudice. In this context, I would recommend caveat emptor for anyone hoping to learn about Steiner from Andy’s writings.

What is the biggest caveat emptor is how the Steinerists make it sound (sugar coating) as IF Steiner’s work- anthroposophy- is science! It is not, never has been. It is the biggest pseudo-science of all times and buyer BEWARE, here, especially unsuspecting parents MUST beware- as they do not suspect any of the bs pseudoscience, they just fall in love with the artsy lookalike! Anyone reading the Steinerists – caveat emptor! Some names are thrown into this, but every day people do not know, that those the Steinerists usually quote, are or have been “anthroposophical next of kin”s- so basically from the same pot, the bamboozle continues and continues and continues with such an impudence!
Facts are not ad hominem Ted- you need to learn more about logical fallacies, as you are not using them in your arguments correctly. Steinerists forget all the time, that the critics actually know a lot too, and they know the details too, because some of us were parents in that bs “pedagogy” but left (it is not a pedagogy, it is dogma, they are not professional teachers, their professional development is ONLY anthro bs from different Steiner centres, they learn esoteric stuff and with this esoteric stuff they will treat children, they cherry pick everything and from everyone to make it look like they have evidence for their “alternative” pseudoscience). Some other critics have studied this pseudoscience to its core, starting from its history.
Its bamboozle does not affect us anymore – unfortunately not true for the new parents who might consider this bs.

By the way: new parents considering Steiner schools: CAVEAT EMPTOR! The above physics explanation is what they will teach in this school in grade 6. Children for a full block in grade 6 physics, go outside and “listen to nothingness”. Some children day dream while listening to this nothingness, and others will misbehave as they would like to finally learn something, especially if they are science oriented. These misbehaved children then, will be punished, letters will be sent home, complaining that they misbehaved and disrupting the physics class. They certainly will not mention, that they were “listening to nothingness”- only the punished child will revolt, that ‘this is bs and they learn nothing’, to which some parents do not listen at all- until……until, they will dig deep into this nonsense themselves. This is what parents pay for in this school but mostly (unless they are anthros themselves) have no idea, what kids learn (to be precise: what kids do not learn, as this is not proper physics at all). Many parents just leave. Many parents who do not understand what is going on in physics class, try to reason with the schools, and try to get info on what kids (do not) learn in physics class, eventually will also leave, as they are thrown out with a letter sating that they must leave, as ‘their child’s soul is not fitting into the class” anymore.

MCnP, as I’ve shown above, the primary secondary quality distinction is the foundational epistemology of physics. It’s not something I or Steiner have invented; instead it was used by Gallileo, Newton, etc and is used scientists today to do physics. I’ve shown that Steiner’s work has given a deeper meaning and understanding of the distinction. I’m sorry that your hatred of Steiner appears to have prevented you from following the argument. Perhaps you need to leave the hatred behind?

Andy tried to shift my argument by a non sequitur to Platonism above; here he has tried to shift it by another non sequitur to measurement. Throughout he has tried to ridicule it. As I said above, I think it would help him in following the argument if he tried to understand it. I gave him link to a Cambridge University philosophy department paper that explains primary and secondary qualities and some of their history in the epistemology of physics but he doesn’t appear to have looked at it. Oh well, you can take a horse to water…

Ted – the alternative possibility is that it is you who do not understand. In fact, I will assert that. I did look at your metaphysical paper on primary and secondary qualities. But these concepts are not facts – they are disputed metaphysical concepts. There is no reason to accept these concepts as axiomatic.

You presented Steiner’s arguments on motion and perhaps what is means for the physicist. Steiner appears to talk about measurement as he asks how we can recognise movement. But what he says is gobbledegook. Nonsense. Physicists have very specific ideas about what it means to make measurements – including how to ‘recognise motion’. Steiner could have no understanding of this as it would have required an understanding of the two pillars of 20th C physics – GR and QM. Steiner died shortly after the publication of GR and during the infancy of QM. Steiner did not understand physics. Just because an emergent property such a ‘warmth’ might be described by underlying motions of particles – that does not mean those particles can have no properties. Steiner’s reasoning is just idiotic. But I suspect he is being deliberately idiotic in order to sound profound to the simpletons who followed him.

What Steiner is is a classic guru who speaks in pseudo-profundity to impress small minds. You claim to have studied Physics but show evidence of that. Instead you wallow in Steiner’s tosh. Pseudo-profundity is the ability to sound profound whilst speaking nonsense. Gurus do this. Steiner’s views on motion may sound important and insightful but leave us with no insight, predictive capability, model of the world or any other capacity to better understand. It is just word salad.

It seems you didn’t read the paper for understanding but to impose on it what you wished to find, that the concept is disputed. It is not. Making an assertion with no evidence is not an argument. As I’ve been saying, in fact, the primary and secondary qualities distinction has been the the bedrock of physics since Galileo.

“Galileo thinks that shape, position, motion, contact, and number are in the objects, while “tastes, odors, colors, and so on …reside only in consciousness.”

It’s what gives physics something to measure, that can then be the subject of mathematics. No measurables, no physics. Secondary qualities are not measurable.

Asking how we can recognise movement is not a question about measurement, and has nothing to do with quantum mechanics or general relativity. That you think it does shows, again, that you don’t understand the argument.

“Steiner did not understand physics.”

No, on the evidence here, you do not understand physics .

As with the colour argument, warmth is not ‘emergent’, it is a secondary quality of experience. The particle motion that is measured in physics as ‘heat’ is not warmth; it is a primary quality property and has no secondary quality of warmth, which appears in our experience

‘that does not mean those particles can have no properties’

This is an obfuscation, the same you have been using throughout, that shows you do not understand the argument and are instead trying to bluff your way through. As you can see, we -Steiner, Galilieo, Newton, the Cambridge philosophy dept et al – are talking about particles not having *secondary qualities*.

Steiner’s words (that you call idiotic): “So what does the physicist want to explain? Let us say color. He says: it is motion. What moves? A colorless body. Or, he wants to explain warmth.”

It’s pointless trying to argue with someone that does not follow evidence and reason and instead obfuscates, ridicules and tries to change the subject (to quantum mechanics and general relativity here!). You do not want to admit you don’t understand this and your words here have been a defence mechanism to avoid facing that.

As I said Ted, I fear I am playing chess with a pigeon. You shit on the board, kick the pieces over and then strut around as if you are the winner. Steiner’s nonsense is just that. There is no insight in what he says – just babble. Pseudo-profundity to impress the impressionable. And if you think that ‘primary and secondary qualities’ have been the bedrock of physics since Galileo then you know nothing about physics. You simply do not have the mental tools to understand why I have challenged you on this.

The things you do here – talking down to others, trying to manipulate to others to get them to agree with you, not caring about the truth, needing an audience, gas-lighting, insulting and ridiculing others- are narcissistic. The narcissistic have a core low self esteem, from childhood emotional wounding, that they cover up and defend against feeling with a grandiose, entitled, unempathic false self. Due to the strength of this defence mechanism the narcissistic can rarely be reasoned with.

“And if you think that ‘primary and secondary qualities’ have been the bedrock of physics since Galileo then you know nothing about physics. You simply do not have the mental tools to understand why I have challenged you on this.”

Insulting me does not win an argument. You’ve still failed to address the argument, and the evidence of that and the argument are here to indict you. If you think you know better than Galileo, Locke, Newton and co I leave you to your solipsism and self-conceit of superiority.

Ted – you are now making a fool of yourself. “Galileo, Locke, Newton” were not ultimate authorities – they were all more wrong about stuff than they were right. That is the very nature of scientific progress and even philosophical progress. We now are now in a position to know a lot more than these greats did.

My guess is that Andy has to ridicule and is unable to address this argument is because it goes to the heart of what it means to know in his own discipline of physics (he says he has a doctorate in it). Rather than accepting that he doesn’t understand the epistemology of physics, which is usual since it is not taught within physics, he is trying to bluff his way out and past his embarrassment. Since, if in his 10 years of lambasting quackery based on it not being scientific, it turns out he doesn’t understand how science works – well, who’s the quack?

Making more of a fool of myself than being a pigeon knocking down the pieces and shitting on the board? Or ‘not having the mental tools’? I don’t think I believe your fake jocular tone.

The argument is still waiting on the board, neither shat on nor knocked over, for you to respond. You remain indicted whilst you play games of avoidance and protection of your false image of superiority.

“Steiner appears to talk about measurement as he asks how we can recognise movement…Physicists have very specific ideas about what it means to make measurements – including how to ‘recognise motion’. Steiner could have no understanding of this as it would have required an understanding of the two pillars of 20th C physics – GR and QM.”

As I drink my coffee and look over Andy’s train wreck of a non argument, I wonder how he can maintain such a high opinion of himself (in his understanding his knowledge and thinking is greater then Galileo, Newton, etc). Nowhere does Steiner talk about measurement (that’s you trying to force the idea into your continuing misunderstanding of it). If I see a bird flying across the sky do I need quantum mechanics and general relativity to detect it is moving? No, I need to detect the edges of the bird and the objects it is flying past and then notice that the distance (a primary quality) between the edges is changing. How do I find the edges? I notice changes in colour, a secondary quality. So that’s the sequence: secondary quality perception leads to primary quality perception. No secondary quality, no primary quality. That was Steiner’s argument (“We must ascribe to color, warmth, sounds, etc., the same reality as to motion.”).

Andy accuses me, and sometimes Steiner, of making a fool of myself; shitting on and knocking over the argument; strutting around as if I am the winner; trying to impress the impressionable and small minded. These are the things that he does. It is a projection onto others his own rejected flaws. Pathological projection is a trait of narcissism

Andy claimed Steiner was not trained in or understood science and philosophy. I showed that wasn’t true. He has given no counter argument.

I showed that the combination of Steiner’s knowledge of science and philosophy and clairvoyance allowed him to provide a deep explanation of how the scientific revolution arose out of a change of consciousness, whereby people’s vestigial spiritual awareness faded to a more purely physical-material awareness. Andy has given no rebuttal.

I described the primary/secondary quality argument strand of Steiner’s explanation of the origin of the scientific revolution. Andy tried to rebut it with an argument on colour perception, and one of the same form on warmth perception, and I showed both failed because he had failed to understand what primary/ secondary qualities are or the argument. He has tried another argument on detecting motion, which I have just shown has also failed for the same lack of understanding.

Something that’s apparent from those references is that Galileo, Newton, etc understood the epistemology of physics and Andy does not. Andy above said that they were not ultimate authorities, got more wrong than right, and that science has moved on from those days. It seems he believed that out of ignorance and a need to feel superior to them.

I said that the division of perception into primary and secondary qualities is what makes physics work, since primary qualities can be measured, and so be the subject of mathematics, and secondary qualities cannot. That argument should have been clear enough from my exposition and the understanding of the division. Instead of refuting my argument or providing evidence against it, Andy attacked me and said my support of it showed that I knew nothing about physics (attacking the messenger is a trait of narcissism) . The argument is reprised in these references, the last of which repeats my argument about why Andy, reasonably, knew nothing about this: it is not taught in physics (due to the specialisation of knowledge the author argues).

Something one can see in the first, essay-review of P/S qualities, that’s apparent across the field, is that there is little disagreement, in the over 3 centuries since Galileo, about what primary or secondary qualities are or that the distinction between them must be made, but there is considerable disagreement over what the distinction means or how the qualities can be related. Steiner describes, in the lectures I referenced above, this same uncertainty as a natural one that is to be expected from the form of the modern consciousness and how it evolved out of the prior Medieval one.

“Even if the distinction between primary and secondary qualities is not ‘invented out of whole cloth’ in the early modern period (Pasnau, p. 59), the distinction between mechanical qualities of matter—such as extension, shape, motion, and perhaps solidity— and sensible qualities—including colour, smell, taste, sound—is often considered to be a defining feature of the ‘new philosophy’ of the seventeenth century, and one of its enduring intellectual legacies. Six of the essays in the volume consider the development of the distinction during the seventeenth century.

Perhaps surprisingly, given the association of the new philosophy of matter with the primary-secondary quality distinction…”

Review of “Primary & Secondary Qualities: The Historical and Ongoing Debate, edited by Lawrence Nolan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. pp. 404” at York University

“Science can adequately explain and describe the nature of the physical world solely in terms of primary qualities; hence, while primary qualities must characterize objects, there is no need to suppose that secondary qualities must also. The latter would be otiose, and on the principle of economy, or Ockham’s razor (that entities should not be multiplied more than is necessary), it would be unscientific to suppose that they exist as intrinsic properties of objects. The objection to this argument is partly that the science of one’s day is not final (thus, Locke was persuaded by seventeenth-century science to include solidity in the list of primary qualities), and mainly that scientific theory and description are not the whole truth—they describe only one aspect of the world, being limited by their quantitative approach and their instruments. Secondary qualities may thus be real properties of matter with biological or aesthetic functions; Ockham’s razor oversimplifies the facts pertaining to living things.”

Primary and Secondary Qualities entry in Envyclopadia.Com, from Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Thomson Gale

“A second limitation of modern science’s metaphysics, closely related to the first, is its disregard of certain human sensations in acquiring knowledge. Early scientists promoted the view that only the “primary qualities” of mathematics, shape, size, and motion were real, while the “secondary qualities” of color, taste, smell, and sound existed only in the mind. ”

“The first major change that modern science brought about was the strict separation of human beings, along with human senses and desires, from the “real” universe of impersonal objects joining, separating, and colliding with each other. Rather than seeing human beings as the center or summit of creation, as the medievals did, modern scientists removed the privileged position of human beings and promoted the goal of “objectivity” in their studies, arguing that we needed to dismiss all subjective human sensations and look at objects as they were in themselves. Kepler, Galileo, and Newton made a sharp distinction between the “primary qualities” of objects and “secondary qualities,” arguing that only primary qualities were truly real, and therefore worth studying. What were the “primary qualities?”: quantity/mathematics, motion, shape, and solidity. These qualities existed within objects and were independent of human perception and sensation. The “secondary qualities” were color, taste, smell, and sound; these were subjective because they were derived from human sensations, and therefore did not provide objective facts that could advance knowledge.”

“What Does Science Explain? Part 3 – The Mythos of Objectivity”, at mythoslogos .org

I wasn’t going to indulge your cut and paste posts any longer or your desperate need to show some sort of intellectual superiority.

But, let’s go with it for a little while longer. If you are so confident of your borrowed ideas from Steiner about how ‘primary and secondary qualities’ somehow undermine my worldview, perhaps you could answer one simple question:

What accepted and objective method exists for demarking primary and secondary qualities?

I note you have not answered my question but merely substituted one word for another: primary->objective; secondary->subjective. My question is very specific about what objective criteria we can apply to determine which is which. I eagerly await your response.

And by the way, no more cut and paste jobs. Only post your own words, short quotes and references to source materials. I want to hear you argue your points, not see your ctr-c, ctr-v skills.

“And by the way, no more cut and paste jobs. Only post your own words, short quotes and references to source materials. I want to hear you argue your points, not see your ctr-c, ctr-v skills.”

I have posted around 35 comments, 31 are my words, 3 are on or by Steiner, 1 is a collection of P/S quality quotes, 1 is a quote on and by Galilieo . Your perception that I am not using my own words is not borne out by the evidence. Most of my arguments and points you haven’t addressed, the few you have I have refuted.

“I note you have not answered my question but merely substituted one word for another: primary->objective; secondary->subjective. My question is very specific about what objective criteria we can apply to determine which is which.”

I didn’t substitute anything; I said P/S qualities are that. In the Galileo quote that I provided, that you deleted, he said they are that. Newton, Descartes, the Cambridge philosophy department et al have said the same. The ‘objective criteria…to determine which is which’ is that the objective aspects of the senses belong to primary qualities and the subjective to secondary.

Let’s test this. Let’s offer some qualities and see how you decide whether they are primary or secondary…

1) time
2) pressure
3) colour
4) sound
5) acceleration

In your answer, please take into account modern physics ideas of how (1) spacetime might be subjective experiences of deeper realities in a holographic universe, (2) complex physical conditions such as colour and sound can be reproduced, measured and processed by artificial systems. Good luck.

The question is not can you delineate this properties – but how do you provide an objective method for doing so so that independent people could come up with the same list. Are you having problems understanding this?

I think he has trouble understanding what you are asking. He keeps repeating his beliefs ad nausem: he thinks that he has shown something- but no, nothing at all. Yet, the pot calling the kettle black!..ain’t that a thing of impudence?

You still put primary and secondary qualities in quotes, as if they don’t exist! The P/S quality distinction has been part of physics for over 3 centuries, used by Galileo, Descartes, Newton, etc to make it work. Yet you say it’s a borrowed idea from Steiner! I think you may have reached a point where your prejudice is interfering with your reason.

“I wasn’t going to indulge your cut and paste posts any longer or your desperate need to show some sort of intellectual superiority.”

The desperate need is yours. That you feel you are being indulgent by allowing a debate to continue is your grandiosity. That you need to put down my posts by calling them cut and paste points to your core insecurity and low esteem. Narcissists tell us who they are, it’s just that most don’t believe them.

Wow. From couple of days ago, the nonsense just get bigger and bigger.

Andy, good on you that you challenge continuously these claims, that claim to be scientific- but in essence, we know, they represent a dogmatic ideology. I, stopped- and I take the side of Brandolini’s Law for the time being.

I see you still aren’t following the argument, MCnP; if you were you would see that Andy has lost it. Don’t worry, I understand you don’t care and that your pain drives you to believe what you want to and to be unable to see your own dogma and Brandolini.

I am not worried, Brandolini is great! All I see, is that you keep repeating the same belief ad nauseum, without any evidence – only what you believe about this. You keep saying, you have shown- yet you have shown nothing ad nauseum. I believe that you believe that you have shown something – but no.

“And if you think that ‘primary and secondary qualities’ have been the bedrock of physics since Galileo then you know nothing about physics. “

Andy says books may not be quoted from and has deleted my short quotes from The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science by EA Burtt for the second time, so readers will have to buy it for themselves to see the evidence from page 85 which refutes his claim.

It’s worth summarising the reducto ad absurdum Andy has brought himself to. I said the primary secondary quality distinction has been the bedrock of physics since Galileo. Andy says it hasn’t . I quoted Galileo showing it has. He deleted my quote and said I have to show it in my own words! Was I there? Am I supposed to invent words as if I was? What did he have in mind when he said this?

Ted – quoting Galileo does not show “the primary secondary quality distinction has been the bedrock of physics.” That is obvious nonsense. Galileo is not the arbiter of what is physics. To show such a concept is the bedrock of physics you should show current undergraduate textbooks that start with this concept as the foundation for such study.

I said it was a bedrock from Galileo. Quoting Galileo showed that it was for Galileo. Galileo was a founder of the scientific revolution; if he based his thinking on P/Q then it was a bedrock of the revolution from then. This is obvious; it only nonsense to you because you are playing games, and trying to avoid facing the fact that your behaviour deleting my comment was absurd.

Galileo thought the tides were caused by water sloshing around as the earth span. He was wrong. Quoting Galileo does make a proposition true.

And I note you concentrate on this indefensible line of argument rather than answer the simple question I set you that would establish if you knew what you were talking about. I shall draw appropriate conclusions from that.

Nothing ever changes in waldorf, same old bs:
“My daughter came home talking about ‘trunk animals,’ ‘head’ animals and ‘limb animals,” Ryder said. “I looked it up, and this is directly out of Steiner.”

“We were looking for an open-minded, heart-based, alternative school, but instead experienced an environment run on archaic, dogmatic, and intolerant principles upheld by an old, power-hungry alumni and founder group that controls the majority of day-to-day operation of the school,” wrote Mimi Thorp in a one-star review one month ago.

“If you’re looking for a place where at least one teacher believes that children with autism spectrum disorder are torn between heaven and hell, and that lying them in the grass and praying over them is very helpful, then look no further,” wrote Sarah Vander Veen in another one-star review.”

Parents around the world realize the bamboozle. Waldorf teachers who believe that children with autism spectrum disorder are torn between heaven and hell, or children with dyslexia are dyslexic because of their previous life karma (and therefore not being helped with reading, simply because Steiner said that “reading will come”, so therefore doing nothing to help them, plus since these teachers are not professional, do not expect that they would know how to help a dyslexic child, instead parents will get a bs explanation, like the ones that were pointed out by parents) are the ones who need help, as they steal the future and harm kids!

“In Anthroposophical doctrine, Lucifer is the god of light. His antagonist is Ahriman, the god of darkness. To balance these two opposing forces, Christ comes to earth as a sun god. This pairing of Jesus and Lucifer as the father and son, are bound to create discomfort in most believers in Christianity. It can certainly create a level of discomfort even to those considered Atheist or Agnostic.
Danny Aguirre, access line director at the Spiritual Counterfeits Project in Berkeley, California stated, “I think that it’s a curriculum that attempts to be palatable for public consumption, but there’s a strategy to subtly influence the children toward Anthroposophy.” This was stated in reply to questions raised regarding whether or not Waldorf Teaching is intended to indoctrinate children in an occult religion.
Waldorf Teaching is based entirely on the philosophies of Rudolf Steiner, a man closely associated with Aleister Crowley among other high level Occultists, Satanists and Secret Lodge members. Rudolf’s brainchild (Waldorf Schools) went on to be lead and further modelled under the similar influences of such degenerates as Eugene Schwartz. It’s past due time for the public to be aware of the real story behind the “mass exodus” that recently took place in our local Kelowna Waldorf School. It’s fair to say there is more on the minds of some parents than the inner workings and petty politics of this local school “. http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-191708-10-.htm

Some of you people are all very funny and full of egos! 🙂 I just would like to say that I went to Waldorf and absolutely loved it. It is a wonderful way of learning and for me, a most enjoyable experience. Sadly, it has now become a school for the rich and elite – I wish I could afford to send my children to Waldorf because the public educational system is so incredibly broken. That is all – just a happy former Waldorfian:)

“And if you think that ‘primary and secondary qualities’ have been the bedrock of physics since Galileo then you know nothing about physics. “

“Still no …acknowledgement of the obvious problem of quoting someone hundreds of years ago to establish a current position.”

—
Affective

“What utter gobbledygook. Meaningless claptrap.”

“Steiner’s reasoning is just idiotic. But I suspect he is being deliberately idiotic in order to sound profound to the simpletons who followed him.”

“You claim to have studied Physics but show evidence of that. Instead you wallow in Steiner’s tosh.”

“You simply do not have the mental tools to understand why I have challenged you on this.”

“Galileo, Locke, Newton….were all more wrong about stuff than they were right.”

“Ted – I am reminded that you should never play chess with a pigeon.”

“I eagerly await your response.”

“Are you having problems understanding this?”

“btw I doubt you have studied physics as you claim to degree level.”

—
Control

“And I note you …[don’t] answer the simple question I set you that would establish if you knew what you were talking about.”

“And by the way, no more cut and paste jobs. Only post your own words, short quotes and references to source materials.”

—

Narcissism is primarily a disease of the emotions. Everything in a narcissist’s behaviour is directed at pushing others down and raising themselves to avoid facing their childhood emotional wounds and core low self esteem. Their low self esteem makes them desperate to control the outer world and other people, to make it and them reflect to them the esteem they can’t give themselves or to force others down so they can feel better about themselves. This damages their reasoning and affective faculties and makes them delusional. A religious narcissists will use religion to try to control others, a scientific narcissist will use science.

Ted – let’s be clear, this comments section is not here to discuss my psychology. Although I do fear you are engaged in some projection here – a common defense mechanism for narcissists.

So, indeed, this is my blog and I will control comments to try to keep things on course. You started off badly, but it has been interesting to watch you wriggle. So, no more bar room psychology. You brought up a subject and have been asked some questions to show that you can justify what you believe. But instead on answering you attack and bluster. I think this is a losing position. You still have the chance to answer these precise questions which I will now summarise…

1) What agreed criteria are there for demarcating primary and secondary qualities?
2) Why should we take the view of Galileo as the accepted position of what modern physicists think?

Long time no hear; interesting you found my physics epistemology debate. Back around 2010 we debated this on Waldorf Critics – you began to understand the primary-secondary quality distinction and how it underpins physics…. then you denied yourself and fell back into cognitive dissonance. Here you are worse and go straight to attacking me. Attacking the messenger is a trait of narcissism. I’m sorry you are lost.

Long time no hear; interesting you found my physics epistemology debate. Back around 2010, we debated this on Waldorf Critics – you began to understand the primary-secondary quality distinction and how it underpins physics…. then you denied yourself and fell back into cognitive dissonance. Here you are worse and go straight to attacking me. Attacking the messenger is a trait of narcissism. I’m sorry you are lost.

Love Waldorf. Second child now following the curriculum. People fear and attack what they don’t understand. The author of this “article” is just more of the same of societies closed minded and indoctrinated people. Public schools have become nothing more than propaganda machines that do very little to educate children. Waldorf is a private school, if you don’t like it.. don’t utilize it. Also, please stop saying parents don’t know what’s going on or that they don’t know the “true meaning” behind the curriculum. You are stating your opinion as though it is fact. I’d bet 90% of public school parents have not a clue whats being pumped into their kids heads all day. Waldorf promotes community and families participating and being apart of the school. Oh and bringing up vaccination is so typical.. you do realize you are surrounded by thousands of unvaccinated people everyday don’t you? In fact if you are over 35 yrs old you yourself most likely aren’t fully vaccinated! How many adults do you know get their boosters? Do you grocery shop? Go to restaurants? Guess what.. you are surrounded by unvaccinated people. Good news is? that doesn’t make you unsafe, despite being shoulder to should with people who aren’t vaccinated. Stop reaching for reasons to bash a school you clearly don’t understand. Kids don’t love it because it’s easy, they love it because the teachers make learning fun and they aren’t forced to sit for hours filling out scantrons.